(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "USA v. Aaron Swartz - Criminal Document #37"

Case l:ll-cr-10260-NMG Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 3 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 
AARON SWARTZ, 

Defendant 



Criminal No. 11-10260-NMG 



JOINT MEMORANDUM IN ANTICIPATION OF INTERIM STATUS CONFERENCE 

The Court has scheduled the next Status Conference in this case for May 22, 2012. The 
parties will jointly request that the Court schedule a final status conference in 60 days i.e., during 
the week of July 23, 2012. This period is necessary for the defense to file discovery motions and 
the government to respond to such motions given that voluntary discovery is complete and the 
parties have substantially narrowed their disagreements regarding the proper scope of discovery 
such that judicial decision-making will be requested and required. 

The parties request that the Court enter an amended order of excludable delay, correcting 
the Order dated March 19, 2012, Docket # 36. As reflected in paragraph 8 of the Court's March 
16, 2012 Interim Status Report (Docket #35), the order of excludable delay was intended to cover 
the period through May 17, 2012 (when the next status conference was scheduled), rather than 
through April 2. 

The parties further request that the Court enter an order of excludable delay under the 

Speedy Trial Act from May 17, 2012 to the date set by the Court for the Final Status Conference, 

on the grounds that the defendant intends to file timely motions, the Government requires 

additional time to respond, the parties have narrowed but not extinguished their differences 

1 



Case l:ll-cr-10260-NMG Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 2 of 3 

regarding the scope of discovery, and that the interests of justice outweighs the best interests of the 
public and the defendant for a trial within seventy days of the return of an indictment. 

(1) The government has produced automatic discovery. In addition, the government has 
provided additional early discovery of many of the materials set forth in Local Rule 116.2(B)(2) 
and the Jencks Act in the form of a searchable electronic Concordance database. 

(2) Additional discovery will be produced in accordance with the schedule established by 
the Local Rules of this Court, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and by statute. 

(3) The parties believe that early discovery provided by the government will enable the 
defense to better assess the case and any potential dispositive motions to be filed in it and will 
enable the parties to brief any contested matters for the Court with greater clarity. However, the 
defense reserved the right to make any additional discovery requests that are appropriate after 
review of the materials it has received from the government. The defense and government have 
narrowed the issues but not eliminated their differences on the proper scope of discovery. 
Discovery motions filed pursuant to the Local Rule protocol will be prepared and filed pursuant to 
a schedule set by the Court during the scheduled Interim Status Conference. 

(4) A protective order has been entered by the Court in this case. 

(5) There are no pending pretrial motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). The parties request 
that the Court defer setting a schedule for the filing of dispositive motions in this case until the 
Final Status Conference in order to give the defense a sufficient opportunity to review any 
additional discovery it receives as a result of the discovery motions. 

(6) The parties propose that expert witness disclosure in this case take place in three 
phases. The government will make its initial expert witness disclosure 11 weeks before trial. 



Case l:ll-cr-10260-NMG Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 3 

The defense will make theirs 8 weeks before trial. The government may then make an additional 
expert disclosure 5 weeks before trial, if an additional expert or experts are necessary to address 
matters raised in the defense disclosure. 

(7) The defenses of insanity, public authority and alibi have not been raised in this case. 

(8) The Court should exclude the period from May 17, 2012 through the date of the next 
Interim Status Conference under the Speedy Trial Act. 

(9) The parties believe that trial is likely and that the trial will last around 3 weeks. 

(10) The parties request that the Final Status Conference be set for the week of July 23, 
2012, in approximately 60 days. 



Respectfully submitted, 

Carmen M. Ortiz 
United States Attorney 

Martin G. Weinberg By: Stephen P. Hevmann 

MARTIN G. WEINBERG, Esq. STEPHEN P. HEYMANN 

Counsel for Defendant Aaron Swartz SCOTT L. GARLAND 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the 
registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). 

Stephen P. Hevmann 



STEPHEN P. HEYMANN 
Assistant United States Attorney 



Date: May 16, 2012